Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site allegra.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!alan From: alan@allegra.UUCP (Alan S. Driscoll) Newsgroups: net.singles Subject: Re: RE:Bigotry Message-ID: <2575@allegra.UUCP> Date: Tue, 3-Jul-84 16:25:19 EDT Article-I.D.: allegra.2575 Posted: Tue Jul 3 16:25:19 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 4-Jul-84 03:52:53 EDT References: <710@ihuxe.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill Lines: 239 > Before I look at Alan's comments more closely, let us refresh our > memories on the intent of Trish's article so that this digression > of arguments won't get out of hand. About a month ago there were > a number of articles claiming that there must be something wrong > with homosexuals. Now this is certainly something that needs to > be properly chastised. However no-one was willing to take an > opposing viewpoint until Trish. What the hell are you talking about here? There were many people who spoke up, including me!!! I can dig out the articles, if you want. Your picture of Trish, struggling single-handedly against prejudice and homophobia, is quite moving, but it doesn't bear any resemblance to reality! > I admire her courage to take a stand > all alone. Have you been hallucinating in front of your CRT, or what? She was hardly alone. Lots of people, both straight and gay, were speaking out against the "gay = perversion of natural instinct" articles. I personally posted quite a number of follow-ups. I guess you ran out of honest arguments a long time ago... > And all she said was that women show her more > understanding/feelings/sensitivity than men. No, that isn't what she said. I've quoted her over and over -- I'm not going to bother to do it again. Go back and read what she wrote. You're obviously confused. > Actually she said men > showed less. Her harsh words might be out of line except when you > consider what she was responding to. Yeah, they just might have been. > They were only used to make a point. You have an incredible bias. You consistently assume the best about Trish, and the worst about me. But that's not surprising. From your articles, it's clear that you have a lousy self-image, and project that onto all men. > The bluntness emphasizes her point. If her comments were as harmless as you claim, then the bluntness did not emphasize her point, but detracted from it. > Anyway, she was trying to explain > why she was a homosexual and that it was her free choice. She was happy > with her life and there certainly wasnt anything wrong with her. Now, > back to Alan's thoughts. >> First Trish posted her bigotry to the net. Then I was attacked >> for objecting to it. Now I'm accused of being a bigot! > The word BIGOT to me means a person who displays a total hatred towards > a particular group or person for no reason other than what they are. > Trish responded to bigotry against homosexuals. No where did she show > a hatred toward men. She only indicated a lack of interest for a male > relationship, not a male friendship. The abusive, derogatory words she used showed a lot more than a lack of interest! Again, your comments have no bearing on reality. > She is not a bigot. I didn't say she was. I said she made a bigotted statement. Do you understand the difference? > You on the > other hand keep insisting on tearing Trish apart. Matter-in-fact you > have no reason to do so as far as I can see and you have made no attempt > to justify why Trish deserves your wrath. I didn't reject her a person, I rejected the position she took. Again, you don't seem to understand the difference. > You are expounding the meaning > of a bigot. You are expounding the meaning of stupidity. > Even when the error of your analysis has been revealed to you, > you insist on continuing on your set course of accusations. Oh, I forgot to thank you for demonstrating the error of my analysis. I'd love to hear you give a history lesson... > For instance > no one calls you a bigot for being straight. Are you really as thick as you're acting? If I call Trish a bigot, and if Trish is a lesbian, does that mean I called her a bigot *for being* a lesbian? What muddled thinking! >> (1) Trish said, "I think most straight men are your egotistical, >> chauvenist, insensitive, macho assholes." How much extrapolating >> do you have to do? She has a problem! If you disagree, think >> about some other statments of the form: >> >> Most are . >> >> How do you react to these statements? What if you are a member >> of ? > Obviously she used some pretty harsh language. No kidding!!! > But you have taken it out of context. Go back and read the original article. > And then you have unreasonably extrapolated in a desperate > attempt to justify your actions. She has no problem when you consider > her article as a whole. No extrapolation was necessary. I read her whole article. She said she chose to be a lesbian because men are creeps. (She was much more colorful, but the point was the same.) > You might have a reason to make a minor flame at > her choice of language. Boy, did you miss the boat. Language doesn't offend me. Intent does. > You have no reason to make personal attacks against > her. Disagreeing with a position someone has taken is not the same as making a personal attack. I have no reason to personally attack Trish. You, on the other hand... > Anyway, she did use the term "most" not "all". This leaves everyone a way > out of her statement. That should leave you no reason to complain. I would complain if someone said, "Most Blacks are lazy." I would complain if someone said, "Most Jews are greedy." Sorry, changing "all" to "most" doesn't make it ok. > Who are you > to say that Trish's experiences don't match the use of the term "most"? My > personal experiences will actually back her up. Use of the term "many" > would have been an understatement. I've already posted an article discussing how people's experiences often *seem* to confirm their prejudices. You obviously have bad feelings about yourself and men in general. See a shrink. Stop wasting my time. > This you could have reasonably disagreed > with but you have chosen other lines of attack in the past. I would not > argue if you gave your opinion on what word you think should have been used. > But this is a small detail and digresses from the article's intent. You continue to miss the point. > Once again I'll repeat the harshness was intended to emphasis her point. > Something I took with a grain of salt considering what kind of articles > she was responding to. I kept an open mind. I did not respond with > immediate hostility. I paused for thought to understand what was going on. One person sent me mail which basically said, "Women have been fielding bigotry all their lives. Why shouldn't they have their turn up at bat?" (This whole thing reminds me of Jesse Jackson's remarks about Jews.) My attitude is, "This person has been the victim of prejudice. If anyone should know better, it's them." >> (2) I was not spouting "typical stereotypes", since I don't think >> that Trish is a typical lesbian. There are good and bad reasons >> for making just about any choice you can make. I'm objecting to >> Trish's reason, not her choice. > I have earlier given what I feel is Trish's reasons for being a > homosexual which I derived from her article. I can see no better > reason. What would be a better reason than those which I gave? What would be a better reason? The obvious one -- because she felt attracted to woman, because she enjoyed intimacy with other women. That's the only good reason I can think of. That's why I'm straight. Not because I think it's "right" or "natural" or any such crap. Because it's what I enjoy. > Just because Trish used a negative argument instead of a positive > argument is irrelevant. In the end they say the same thing. No, they don't say the same thing. Being a lesbian because you think men are creeps is *not* the same as being a lesbian because you are attracted to woman rather than men. > And here > you go again. Calling her atypical. Geez. Yes, I do think she's atypical. I think most gays choose to be gay because it's what feels right for them personally, not because they are disgusted with half the human race, and have retreated to the other half. > Keep this up and I'll > start making attacks against you personally. I'll have good reason > though which will not make me a bigot. This is getting boring... > Do you treat every normal > homosexual in this way? You start by calling them abnormal and go > from there? That was what Trish flamed about in the first place. Damn it, I've spent too much time defending gays to take this crap from you. No, I assume that every homosexual is a happy, well-adjusted person who happens to have different preferences than mine. In Trish's case, though, this assumption didn't seem to work. >> (3) I'm getting tired of the double standard. If a man made this >> sort of remark about all woman, I suspect the same people who are >> defending Trish would be jumping all over him. I insist that we >> should *consistently* reject *all* such bigotry. > I would jump all over any person who made a derogatory comment about > ALL members of any group irregardless of the sex of the speaker. > So where's the double standard? Since we seem to all agree on consistantly > rejecting all forms of bigotry, I suggest we start with the only bigotry > in evidence here. Yours. > > Robert As I've already explained, changing "all" to "most" just isn't good enough. Where's the double standard? Your comments are an excellent example of it. -- Alan S. Driscoll AT&T Bell Laboratories